Ben-Yashar'el v. Kirschbaum CA2/6

Filed 7/15/22 Ben-Yashar’el v. Kirschbaum CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

YACHIM BEN-YASHAR’EL, 2d Civ. No. B315184 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2021- Plaintiff and Appellant, 00549871-CU-OR-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

BLAKE KIRSCHBAUM, as Trustee, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

“A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again.”1

1 Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism, 1711.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Yachim Ben-Yashar’el2 placed an ad in a local newspaper stating he intended to buy an unlisted hilltop property in Westlake Village. He mailed an unsolicited $800 check to the property owner’s trustee (respondent). The unsuspecting trustee deposited the check; whereupon appellant claimed ownership of the property and encumbered it by recording a UCC1 form.3 Respondent demanded appellant remove the encumbrance. Appellant refused; instead he sued to quiet title. The trial court sustained the trustee’s demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend and granted his motion for sanctions in the amount of $7,725. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7.) In doing so the court strongly expressed displeasure with appellant’s meritless claim. Appellant appeals both rulings. We affirm in full. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Appellant seeks to enforce a non-existent agreement to purchase property at 3970 Victoria Lane in Thousand Oaks (the Property), valued around $30,000,000; his check is for $800.4 The

2 Appellant appears In Pro Per in this court as he did in the court below. He is neither benefited nor prejudiced because of his status. (See Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210 [self-represented litigant “is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys”].)